Freedom of speech is the key element of the real democracies. Freedom of speech is also concerned to the idea that people can speak freely without being stopped, or censored. Freedom of speech is briefly hallmark of democracy because democracy is based on independent thoughts of people. In a democratic society people are allowed to express their views freely and peacefully. There will be no democracy if freedom of speech isn't granted to people. Where there is freedom of speech, new ideas and thoughts are made available by the members of the society through free dialogues, discussions and debates. Thus, the right of freedom of speech is a necessary condition for creating a healthy and democratic society in which, people inhabiting a particular country. On the other hand freedom of speech cannot exist under the monopoly. Therefore freedom of speech should be equally and fairly granted to everyone without any privileges from the poor to the wealthier who are living within a society. As introduced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ first Article (1948), “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” However people do not live the same life standards, religions or other similar reasons. Therefore they may feel antagonism and antipathy towards other different ones and their understanding of freedom might bring offensive, insulting or sometimes harming problems. I believe that offensive or insulting speeches may also cause some psychological harm but the degree or the type of these speeches might be depended on individuals and any authority should not have the right what type of speeches might be offensive or a hate speech. Furthermore the best way that I find more efficient than censorships is only to prevent other individuals from physical harms. Therefore I find J. S. Mill’s Harm Principle more logical approach in order to establish a democratic society. Although I think that we cannot decide on what is offensive or not for people, I believe that people should have respect towards other different ones as a guideline for the universal ethical procedure so I do not agree with Mr. Spencer (2006) who states “Freedom of expression encompasses the freedom to annoy, to ridicule and to offend. If it doesn’t, it is meaningless.”

Mill (1978) suggests that we need some rules of conduct to regulate the actions of members of a political community and he names his approach as “one very simple principle” that is usually referred to the “Harm Principle.” I believe that classifying the speeches due to the harms that cause, will be a logical approach in order to limit some individuals and communities. Thus a welfare atmosphere will be easily established within a society where individuals will be still free in expressing themselves. They will talk, criticize and modify the existing ideas or they will be able to contribute their societies by creating new opinions that will aid to beat the dogmatic approaches. In this case my opinion is that the governments should be in charge of limiting some freedom in order to prevent other from the physical harms. As Mill (1978) states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” For example people should not have the freedom to rape the ones whom they like or they should not kill whom they would. Otherwise they may have some offensive or insulting speeches towards the ones whom they do not like. Although I disagree with the existence of this kind of offensive or hate speeches; it will be an empty dream in which we can isolate all of them because it depends on people who should respect towards others. I also support the fact that limits should be also limited in order to prevent the dangers of the “slippery slope” mentioning that limiting speech might be inevitable slide into censorship and tyranny. Therefore it is...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...saying that freedom of speech is the first step of reaching to a free society . Despite the fact that people need to reveal their personal thoughts about politics and criticize it in any facet , many governments are against this right . In this essay I will outline the arguments for and against necessity of freedomspeech for a free society. As far as I concerned , with the enormous pace of development of technology in our modern-age and mass producing of TV , Radio and accessibility of most of the people to internet , people are aware of their rights and they have the knowledge that by criticizing and showing their disapproval they can obtain their needs. To give more details , I should mention that people have learnt from the history that by having the right to say their ideas and have the security after that , the society will be better place to live.
Added to that many politician are against the idea that people and media should be free to show their thoughts . They also create rules for banning the media and set some red lines for censorships . Additionally governments are afraid of being accused by media in any way . It is an undeniable fact that so many of politician want to hide their dark sides , so they prefer limit the people’s freedoms. I am strongly of the opinion that people and media should have the right to state their thoughts and criticize everyone in the government or even a...

...Freedom of Speech
The First Amendment for America was built on freedom. The freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within the law. The first amendment was designed to protect each race. Out of all of our rights, freedom ofspeech is should be the most cherished, and one of the most talked about subjects. Freedom of speech should be utilized, because so many people fought for the right to have freedom and the freedom to speak. Freedom to vote in every major election. Freedom to travel to any state of your choice. Freedom of speech has allowed Americans to speak out against what is wrong with the country and in the world and it has allowed people to express themselves in their own way(rights and liberties 2003 pg 17) Having the freedom to speak is a positive thing. If you use the freedom of speech in the correct way nothing can stand in your way of becoming the best person you can be and have great success.
Freedom of speech is a brave epidemic that has had a great deal of importance on Americans, and the way they live...

...Randa Nakib
Final Draft
Essay 1
Freedom Of Speech?
Living in America means that we as citizens of the country have many rights according to the laws stated in the United States Constitution, which stands for our principles and make up the rights that American's deserve. One major freedom we have is stated in The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This amendment shows that our government should not be allowed to put limitations on the people's right to express themselves through free speech and religion. We as citizens have the right to voice our opinions as long as we do not cause harm while doing so. This is a reason why many people from around the world choose to come to America, for their right to freedom. The first amendment should apply to everyone who lives in the United States, but in some cases it does not.
In a recent case, a teenage boy's right to exercise his freedom of speech was challenged by his high school. He wore an "anti-gay" t-shirt to school on the day of, and also on the day after, the Gay-Straight Alliance group organized a "day of silence". The boy, Tyler Chase...

...
Hate Speech or Free SpeechSpeech has been a very important tool for mankind. It has allowed man to communicate with each other to share knowledge, settle disputes and to develop as a community. However throughout history, there have been times where speech has been misused and subsequently caused harm. As a result, rules had to be placed over what is appropriate to be said and what is not. Thus a few questions arise: Does freespeech really exist? How free are people to say what they want to say? What are the restrictions of our free speech? How are these restrictions measured? In John Stuart Mill’s book On Liberty he expressed his strong belief on the importance of individual liberty and free speech. However, to bring the issue of free speech into modern terms, Mill’s beliefs are challenged on TVO’s The Agenda. Three Osgoode Hall law students are protesting against Mark Steyn’s views on Muslim demographics as well as the material that MacLean’s is publishing. With this said, free speech should exist as an integral part of modern society, but there must be limits that pertain to how far freedom of speech can be pushed before it is harmful to someone else.
Free Speech can be defined as being able to express and opinion, thought or belief without any restrictions. Mill believes that...

...History 12 – The Absolute Right of Free Speech
“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
* Voltaire (18th Century French Philosopher)
A fundamental aspect of humanity is the capability of complex communication and logic, something which has deemed us far superior to creatures much stronger and faster than our relatively feeble bodies. However, mankind often falls prey to bigotry, believing in a single opinion and refusing to listen to any other, a flaw which has brought forth much devastation to society. The implementation of democracy allowed the gradual evolution of the freedom of expression, ensuring the right for people to speak their thoughts without fear of oppression or punishment. Yet with every right, there comes a responsibility; the freedom of speech is not absolute and shouldn’t be, for every word has power behind it and should be treated with such value. Allowing absolute freedom of speech would result in chaos, prohibiting punishment for threats, disturbances or false information. Freedom of expression should be defined as a basic human right, yet not an absolute one.
The earliest example of the oppression of opinion occurred in the first democracy of the world, Athens. The renowned philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death by the democratic government of Athens, for his views that...

...Free Speech
It has always been said that the three fundamental needs of mankind are food, shelter and clothing. Although man cannot survive without these physical necessities, I believe that there is a fourth equally important need which is the free expression of self. These days, with the exception of the extremely poor, most people assign great importance to this need for expression of self. Everyday around the United States, there are either multiple articles being published about the restrictions imposed on freedom of speech, or public speeches given about people not being allowed to express their beliefs toward such everyday subjects like religion and war. In a way, it is ironic to note that even though they have all been allowed to publish these articles and speak about these controversial subjects, they still complain about not having freedom of speech. What they don’t realize is that there are places with much stricter policies toward freedom of expression that is even hard to imagine for an American. I have the honor of being from one of those places: The Islamic Republic of Iran.
Before drawing an analogy between the current state of freedom of speech in US and Iran, I believe it's necessary to examine the core concept of this freedom in greater detail. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states that "The free communication of...

...might be true, but the only way to block minors also involves blocking adults. There is currently no system that will prevent children from having access to sites deemed offensive, while still allowing adults to surf wherever they like. It is usually an all or nothing deal. This is just another example of the government trying to limit the rights our forefathers deemed essential.
Freedom of speech is an issue that always comes up when our government or organizations talk about censoring the internet. Many people believe that by censoring what they can see or publish on the internet it is a violation of their first amendment rights. The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" By passing legislature attempting to censor the internet it restricts a persons freedom of speech. Many military people have died protecting this precious freedom. Just because some companies might produce materials that some people feel is offensive, nothing gives the government the right to infringe upon the publishers first amendment rights and censor it from people who would enjoy it. When the government found it couldn’t censor...

...﻿The Freedom of Speech
In the United States, citizens have several rights that are protected by the United States Constitution. In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Freedom of Expression (speech) is recognized. The Freedom of Speech is the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. The right to Freedom of Speech is not absolute and is common subject to limitations such as libel, slander, copyright violation, and revelation of information that is classified. While some believe Freedom of Speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that citizens of the United States exercise.
I. Freedom of Speech
Censorship is defined as "the control of information and ideas circulated within a society" ("What is Censorship?"). Many citizens of the United States believe that the Freedom of Speech should be restricted. These people think that speech should be limited to protect the feelings of others. As said by Arman J. Britton, "Words are just words until they are put in a certain context. However, even words taken out of context are just words and cannot be subjected to a banning every time it offends someone. The First Amendment doesn’t [SIC] take sides. Putting limits on freedom of...